Alternative facts: How the media failed Julian Assange

Post by headsoup » Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 2:39 PM UTC

206lol wrote: post #10

jonathanstrange wrote: post #4

The efforts to discredit Assange are a primary example of a successful smear campaign. It's not surprising that people are gullible to make such campaigns easy, character assassination always works when large government agencies are behind it for many years. I was actually surprised how long it took.

Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuinely ok for someone to draw the conclusion that, "given the criticism, I cannot support them". Yes, a deliberate smear campaign exists, but also these are institutions with complex histories. You cannot simply call anyone critical of them "gullible".

Post by nabla9 » Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 2:40 PM UTC

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #11

nabla9 wrote: post #9

Cockburn's story is not the full story. Assange is not charged only for doing journalism, such as revealing secret information. Assange is also charged for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and conspiring to do so. Journalists rightfully defend Assange only in the the first type of charges, but not in the second type. He should go to US and face charges. Assange stopped being journalist at some point and start…

the problem is most of the evidence for that second charge is significantly lacking. most of it has already been proven fake (as shown by the article)

Post by kspacewalk2 » Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 2:44 PM UTC

headsoup wrote: post #12

206lol wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuinely ok for someone to draw the conclusion that, "given the criticism, I cannot support them". Yes, a deliberate smear campaign exists, but also these are institutions with complex histories. You cannot simply call anyone critical of them "gullible".

I think that's why people need to look past the character and heresays and look at the facts and processes. Ignore Assange's character, make him an anonymous person instead and think "is the process X person has gone through for Y actions reasonable/legal/supportable?" Should whistleblowers be supported or vilified?

Post by snehk » Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 2:45 PM UTC

superkuh wrote: post #2

It's pretty clear what happened. People started to view the reporting of Wikileaks as evil or fake as soon as it negatively impacted $theirpoliticalside. Once these perceptions fell into place it was easy to disregard all the good, villify him personally, and ignore the authoritarian and illegal actions taken against him.

Post by snehk » Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 2:47 PM UTC

206lol wrote: post #10

jonathanstrange wrote: post #4

The efforts to discredit Assange are a primary example of a successful smear campaign. It's not surprising that people are gullible to make such campaigns easy, character assassination always works when large government agencies are behind it for many years. I was actually surprised how long it took.

Here's the thing, though, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicated figures who have done good and evil things. They are fair targets for criticism, and it's genuinely ok for someone to draw the conclusion that, "given the criticism, I cannot support them". Yes, a deliberate smear campaign exists, but also these are institutions with complex histories. You cannot simply call anyone critical of them "gullible".